A few words about…™ Braveheart & Gladiator — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

Very Highly Recommended 4 Stars

Paramount continues to mine their back catalog, and that’s a good thing.

Braveheart and Gladiator are two very different films, but share a common thread.

Freedom, personal as well as national.

In 4k, they appear quite different, with Braveheart appearing more film-like, presumably based upon the heavier load of digital work in Gladiator, which would have been at 2k.

With more production photography in Braveheart, we are allowed a more original appearing grain structure.

That noted, both look as they should. And for those with an need to compare to the original Gladiator Blu-ray, I advise that it isn’t worth one’s time to go there.

The point is that they both look like their final film versions, and are accurately represented.

Another big plus here, is the addition of height channels, DTS-X on Gladiator, and Dolby Atmos on Braveheart, which create far more impressive sound fields on both.

For those who do not yet have height channels, Braveheart is the obvious upgrade from standard Blu-ray, while Gladiator can wait until the system is in the house.

Image – 5

Audio – 5 – Gladiator (DTS-X)
Braveheart (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from Blu-ray – Gladiator – Yes
Braveheart – Absolutely!

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

68 Comments

  1. Thank you, Paramount. A beautiful double-header. So nice to see these signs of 4K UHD activities.
    We are all looking forward to the future outputs that hopefully lays ahead.

  2. Lord Dalek

    "…and neither of 'em deserved to win Best Picture."

    I'm looking at the other nominees from 2000, and would say this position on Gladiator is debatable at best. Chocolat was a [pardon the pun] sweet movie, where some took issue with its deviation from the source novel, particularly with respect to the central "villain"; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a gorgeous film that in some ways left me cold; Erin Brockovich, while showing the world that Julia Roberts could act, is underwhelming, which leaves Traffic, which is a cinematic blind spot for me.

    As for Braveheart, your argument is stronger there. My only blind spot of those films is Il Postino, and I would have gladly given the Oscar to any one of the other nominees, but especially Babe, which is a wondrous cinematic achievement of the kind most frequently ignored by the Academy these days.

  3. John Hermes

    "Paramount continues to mine their back catalog"

    They have lots of excavating to do from the 1950s and 1960s.

    among the many great films on that list I hope there is room to restore the Hal Wallis Elvis Presley films:
    Loving You (1957)
    King Creole (1958)
    GI Blues (1960)
    Blue Hawaii (1961)
    Girls Girls Girls (1962)
    Fun In Acapulco (1963)
    Roustabout (1964)
    Paradise, Hawaiian Style (1966)
    Easy Come, Easy Go (1967)

    I would assume that most would look at these films and think they are not worth restoring and I agree that compared to lots of other films they are of little artistic merit. But Elvis films were a genre of their own, most were box office hits and do represent a large part of pop culture at that time, they are historically important.

    while the last two above are bad, the others were highlights of Elvis film career. King Creole being his finest film. It would be fantastic during restoration if they found the cut songs from King Creole, GI Blues, Blue Hawaii, Girls Girls Girls and Paradise Hawaiian Style.

    Regards
    Anthony

  4. I actually think "Gladiator" is a more substantial visual upgrade than RAH seems to feel.

    When I watched the BD a few months back, I thought it looked great, and I didn't expect a substantial upgrade from the 4K.

    However, the HDR makes a big different for the 4K – when I flipped between the BD and the 4K, I thought the 4K's colors were substantially more dynamic and vivid.

    Definition is also clearly better.

    "Braveheart" is also an upgrade, but since the source is "uglier", it seems like a less impressive jump to me…

  5. Stephen_J_H

    I'm looking at the other nominees from 2000, and would say this position on Gladiator is debatable at best. Chocolat was a [pardon the pun] sweet movie, where some took issue with its deviation from the source novel, particularly with respect to the central "villain"; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a gorgeous film that in some ways left me cold; Erin Brockovich, while showing the world that Julia Roberts could act, is underwhelming, which leaves Traffic, which is a cinematic blind spot for me.

    As for Braveheart, your argument is stronger there. My only blind spot of those films is Il Postino, and I would have gladly given the Oscar to any one of the other nominees, but especially Babe, which is a wondrous cinematic achievement of the kind most frequently ignored by the Academy these days.

    In 1995, the best movies didn't get nominated. "Se7en" and "Usual Suspects" were the cream of the year's crop, but they got no BP love.

    Among the actual nominees, "Apollo 13" was/is my pick. I'm not a big fan of Ron Howard as a director, but he did well with that one.

    Were there some notable 2000 releases that didn't get a BP nod? Probably, but I can't think of them off the top of my head…

  6. Stephen_J_H

    I'm looking at the other nominees from 2000, and would say this position on Gladiator is debatable at best. Chocolat was a [pardon the pun] sweet movie, where some took issue with its deviation from the source novel, particularly with respect to the central "villain"; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a gorgeous film that in some ways left me cold; Erin Brockovich, while showing the world that Julia Roberts could act, is underwhelming, which leaves Traffic, which is a cinematic blind spot for me.

    And therein lies the rub.

  7. ABritch

    among the many great films on that list I hope there is room to restore the Hal Wallis Elvis Presley films:
    Loving You (1957)
    King Creole (1958)
    GI Blues (1960)
    Blue Hawaii (1961)
    Girls Girls Girls (1962)
    Fun In Acapulco (1963)
    Roustabout (1964)
    Paradise, Hawaiian Style (1966)
    Easy Come, Easy Go (1967)

    I would assume that most would look at these films and think they are not worth restoring and I agree that compared to lots of other films they are of little artistic merit. But Elvis films were a genre of their own, most were box office hits and do represent a large part of pop culture at that time, they are historically important.

    while the last two above are bad, the others were highlights of Elvis film career. King Creole being his finest film. It would be fantastic during restoration if they found the cut songs from King Creole, GI Blues, Blue Hawaii, Girls Girls Girls and Paradise Hawaiian Style.

    Regards
    Anthony

    Most don’t need restoration.

  8. ABritch

    among the many great films on that list I hope there is room to restore the Hal Wallis Elvis Presley films:
    Loving You (1957)
    King Creole (1958)
    GI Blues (1960)
    Blue Hawaii (1961)
    Girls Girls Girls (1962)
    Fun In Acapulco (1963)
    Roustabout (1964)
    Paradise, Hawaiian Style (1966)
    Easy Come, Easy Go (1967)

    I would assume that most would look at these films and think they are not worth restoring and I agree that compared to lots of other films they are of little artistic merit. But Elvis films were a genre of their own, most were box office hits and do represent a large part of pop culture at that time, they are historically important.

    while the last two above are bad, the others were highlights of Elvis film career. King Creole being his finest film. It would be fantastic during restoration if they found the cut songs from King Creole, GI Blues, Blue Hawaii, Girls Girls Girls and Paradise Hawaiian Style.

    Regards
    Anthony

    Elvis and the missing John Wayne films. Among many others.

  9. Tino

    I think Braveheart was the best nominated film of 1995 and absolutely deserved to win all it’s Oscars. Can’t wait to own the UHD.

    Does this mean you think there was a better unnominated 1995 film?

  10. Robert Harris

    Clean-up

    I'd be satisfied with a good clean-up and release in HD on Blu-ray. But, restoration from the original film elements would ensure these films were preserved forever. I was also thinking, if they had to go and find the film elements for the Elvis films they might find the songs that were filmed but cut prior to release.

  11. ABritch

    I'd be satisfied with a good clean-up and release in HD on Blu-ray. But, restoration from the original film elements would ensure these films were preserved forever. I was also thinking, if they had to go and find the film elements for the Elvis films they might find the songs that were filmed but cut prior to release.

    They didn't seem to keep much of that kind of stuff back in the day. 🙁

  12. Colin Jacobson

    Does this mean you think there was a better unnominated 1995 film?

    Nah Apollo 13 should have won that Oscar. I can only imagine it didnt happen because Babe and Sense and Sensibility split the vote leading to the dark horse upset.

  13. Lord Dalek

    Nah Apollo 13 should have won that Oscar. I can only imagine it didnt happen because Babe and Sense and Sensibility split the vote leading to the dark horse upset.

    I was surprised "Braveheart" even got nominated, honestly. It didn't get great reviews and it wasn't a big box office draw.

    Plus, it was a May release, so it didn't have the usual kind of "late year" momentum that attracts Oscar voters. Usually if a movie from the first half of a year gets a nom, it's because it was really noteworthy. "Braveheart" just kinda came and went without a lot of impact.

    Going into the Oscars, I figured "A13" was the one to beat. Since I was so surprised that "Braveheart" got nominated, I sure didn't expect it to win!

    And I still don't get it. "Braveheart" is a moderately enjoyable film but not one without clear flaws. The battle scenes are good but a lot of the rest of it is mawkish and clunky.

    Doesn't help Gibson was about 50 years too old to play Wallace, too! 😀

  14. Colin Jacobson

    "Braveheart" better than "Se7en" and "Unusual Suspects"? :blink::blink::blink:

    Absolutely 100%

    I like Seven. Unusual Suspects I like more.

    Neither I thought are as amazing as Braveheart.

  15. Tino

    Absolutely 100%

    I like Seven. Unusual Suspects I like more.

    Neither I thought are as amazing as Braveheart.

    To each his own, of course, but "Se7en" and "Suspects" were new. creative and influential. "Braveheart" doesn't belong in their class…

  16. Colin Jacobson

    To each his own, of course, but "Se7en" and "Suspects" were new. creative and influential. "Braveheart" doesn't belong in their class…

    To you maybe. I disagree.

  17. I have both of these on preorder, but I don't know that I *need* them. Neither are personal favorite movies and I don't know if I can justify the current Amazon price point of almost $26. Especially with so many other heavy hitters coming in the next month or two.

  18. Lord Dalek

    Nah Apollo 13 should have won that Oscar. I can only imagine it didnt happen because Babe and Sense and Sensibility split the vote leading to the dark horse upset.

    I agree and years later I still find that Apollo 13 the superior film.

  19. I loved Apollo 13 too but knowing the ending in advance sort of diminished the suspense of the entire film.

    Braveheart just flat out blew me away.

    In today’s dollars Braveheart would have made $125 million domestic and $350 million worldwide. Pretty good.

  20. The moral here is the Oscars couldn't hit (American Beauty aside) the broad side of a barn in between Schindler's List and Return of the King. With 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2002 being the most eggregious errors

  21. Tino

    In today’s dollars Braveheart would have made $125 million domestic and $350 million worldwide. Pretty good.

    WW it made $213m and it cost $72m. It probably turned a minor profit with WW grosses but not much of one.

    It seemed like a commercial disappointment for a movie with a prime Memorial Day-ish release date and an "A"-level star involved.

    It was 18th for 1995 in the US, sandwiched between "Father of the Bride 2" and "Get Shorty".

    "Se7en" cost $33m and made $327m WW. No small feat for such a relentlessly dark movie…

  22. We can debate the merits of the Oscars endlessly but in the end it’s just opinions of Academy members at the time.

    There is no right or wrong. More members voted for the winners. Simple.

  23. Colin Jacobson

    WW it made $213m and it cost $72m. It probably turned a minor profit with WW grosses but not much of one.

    It seemed like a commercial disappointment for a movie with a prime Memorial Day-ish release date and an "A"-level star involved.

    It was 18th for 1995 in the US, sandwiched between "Father of the Bride 2" and "Get Shorty".

    "Se7en" cost $33m and made $327m WW. No small feat for such a relentlessly dark movie…

    Which of course has nothing to do with the quality of the film. I posted those numbers merely to illustrate in today’s dollars it would be viewed more favorably as a Best Picture Winner.

  24. I saw all of the above 1995 films mentioned here, and Heat was the best. Usual Suspects was excellent as well but it's watchability is good for maybe 2 times unless you want to try and decipher Fenster's dialog.

    Casino wasn't nominated either. What a joke

  25. Tino

    Which of course has nothing to do with the quality of the film. I posted those numbers merely to illustrate in today’s dollars it would be viewed more favorably as a Best Picture Winner.

    What does its gross have to do with how it's viewed as a BP winner? Most BP winners don't make a lot of money…

  26. Douglas_H

    I saw all of the above 1995 films mentioned here, and Heat was the best. Usual Suspects was excellent as well but it's watchability is good for maybe 2 times unless you want to try and decipher Fenster's dialog.

    Casino wasn't nominated either. What a joke

    "Casino" was nominated in 1990 under its original title: "GoodFellas"…

  27. Colin Jacobson

    What does its gross have to do with how it's viewed as a BP winner? Most BP winners don't make a lot of money…

    Like you said. For that film at that time with the talent involved it was expected to do more. My point is it’s boxoffice was not as bad as was thought in 1995.

  28. I don't know for sure and don't really care one way or other, but back then, didn't they re-release Best Picture winners to capitalized on Oscar wins? I suspect some of that final tally for Braveheart came not from its original release which was, as we all remember, thought a disappointment, but from extra money picked up after it won Best Picture. It used to be a Best Picture win would guarantee an extra $10 million. Maybe after the VHS revolution that wasn't true any more (it added to video sales and rentals instead), but it's just me thinking out loud (via keyboard).

  29. Matt Hough

    I don't know for sure and don't really care one way or other, but back then, didn't they re-release Best Picture winners to capitalized on Oscar wins? I suspect some of that final tally for Braveheart came not from its original release which was, as we all remember, thought a disappointment, but from extra money picked up after it won Best Picture. It used to be a Best Picture win would guarantee an extra $10 million. Maybe after the VHS revolution that wasn't true any more (it added to video sales and rentals instead), but it's just me thinking out loud (via keyboard).

    If I recall correctly, Braveheart was released post Oscars win but did not significantly increase it’s boxoffice totals.

  30. Colin Jacobson

    "Casino" was nominated in 1990 under its original title: "GoodFellas"…

    To me, that's like saying that The Sopranos and GoodFellas are the same because they both feature characters involved in the mafia.

  31. Tino

    Like you said. For that film at that time with the talent involved it was expected to do more. My point is it’s boxoffice was not as bad as was thought in 1995.

    I didn't think the film was viewed as a bomb, but it definitely didn't sell a lot of tickets, and we agree that Gibson's presence meant more was expected.

    Though I'm not sure how realistic that was – even with an "A"-list star, a three-hour period piece about an obscure (to Americans) historical figure sounded like a tough sell.

    It's less a surprise the movie didn't sell lots of tickets and more a surprise anyone thought it would.

    "Se7en"'s success comes as the bigger surprise, IMO. Yeah, Brad Pitt gave it star value, but still – that's an awfully dark film.

    Sure, there's precedent for hits that're dark – "Exorcist", "Silence of the Lambs" – but it's still a surprise when it happens!

  32. Tino

    If I recall correctly, Braveheart was released post Oscars win but did not significantly increase it’s boxoffice totals.

    I looked at the "Braveheart" totals on BOM and it had a weird pattern.

    For its 1st 2.5 months, it went through the normal declines – until the weekend of September 15, where it jumped massively.

    Apparently it got a "re-release" – it went from 121 screens to 1700!

    Not sure why they decided to do that, but it gave the movie more juice. It'd made $60m to that point but it added $6m more than next 3 weeks.

    It then lost theaters rapidly and was out of theaters by the end of 1995 – until February 1996, when it went back into 792 screens as the Oscar nom push.

    From 2/96 until it finally left screens, it added about $8 million.

    So to recap: "Braveheart" made $60m in its "initial run" and added $7m in its fall re-release. A winter 1996 re-re-release threw another $8m on the pile.

    This means it made 20% of its total during its "normal release" run – and that's where it'd probably ended up if 1995 video release patterns were the same as those in 2018. A May release is now out on Blu-ray by August!

    Yeah, they'd have re-released it into theaters for the Oscars, but I doubt that would've added much. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Oscar re-releases don't much benefit movies that're already available for home video…

  33. TravisR

    To me, that's like saying that The Sopranos and GoodFellas are the same because they both feature characters involved in the mafia.

    No, it's not like that at all.

    "GF" and "Casino" share the same director, the same writers, some of the same actors, and are very similar stylistically.

    If you like "Casino", more power to you, but let's not act like it's a movie that differs greatly from "GoodFellas". It really is a semi-remake…

  34. Robert Crawford

    I agree and years later I still find that Apollo 13 the superior film.

    Me too. I like both films immensely, but Apollo 13 I think is slightly better. I just watched the UHD disc and fell in love with it all over again, such a great, inspiring movie.

    I can't wait to see the 4K Transfer of Braveheart.

  35. Colin Jacobson

    No, it's not like that at all.

    "GF" and "Casino" share the same director, the same writers, some of the same actors, and are very similar stylistically.

    If you like "Casino", more power to you, but let's not act like it's a movie that differs greatly from "GoodFellas". It really is a semi-remake…

    …that's like saying Goodfellas is a semiremake of Raging Bull though.

  36. Lord Dalek

    …that's like saying Goodfellas is a semiremake of Raging Bull though.

    <_<<_<<_<

    No, not at all. Yes, they involved some of the same personnel, but the subject matter was different and the styles were very different.

    Like I said earlier, if people like "Casino", that's great, but it really is very similar to "GoodFellas". It's not like I'm the only person who's ever made that claim…

  37. Lord Dalek

    …that's like saying Goodfellas is a semiremake of Raging Bull though.

    No it isn't. Not once in did I ever hear Robert De Niro tell Sharon Stone to "kiss the boo-boo"
    Ooops, wrong film, I was thinkin' "Casino".

  38. Colin Jacobson

    […]Like I said earlier, if people like "Casino", that's great, but it really is very similar to "GoodFellas". It's not like I'm the only person who's ever made that claim…

    Actually, you are.:D

  39. I am of the understanding that there were two BD releases of "Gladiator"
    One was the Sapphire Edition and purportedly a better, or corrected one which followed.
    Meanwhile, of the BD that accompanies the 4K/UHD, I wonder where that transfer follows?
    Is it the corrected transfer ported over, or is it on an even higher level?

    I also wonder if anyone can clarify if the BD that accompanies the 4K/UHD of "Braveheart" is bested from the Sapphire edition, as well?

  40. Colin Jacobson

    <_<<_<<_<

    No, not at all. Yes, they involved some of the same personnel, but the subject matter was different and the styles were very different.

    Like I said earlier, if people like "Casino", that's great, but it really is very similar to "GoodFellas". It's not like I'm the only person who's ever made that claim…

    Huh?
    Do you actually know what the 2 movies are about?
    Goodfellas is the story of Henry Hill.
    Casino is the story of Lefty Rosenthal.

  41. PMF

    I am of the understanding that there were two BD releases of "Gladiator"
    One was the Sapphire Edition and purportedly a better or corrected one which followed.
    Meanwhile, what is known of the BD that accompanies the 4K/UHD?
    Is it the corrected transfer ported over, or is it on an even higher level?

    I also wonder if anyone can clarify if the BD that accompanies the 4K/UHD of "Braveheart" is bested from the Sapphire edition, as well?

    Yes – the BD with the 4K is the "corrected" transfer…

  42. Douglas_H

    Huh?
    Do you actually know what the 2 movies are about?
    Goodfellas is the story of Henry Hill.
    Casino is the story of Lefty Rosenthal.

    Well, there you go – that convinces me that the two movies aren't vaguely alike. Totally different – nothing about "Casino" echoes/"remakes" "GoodFellas" at all! 🙄

  43. What's wrong with having a stock company of actors?
    What's wrong with having a variation of a theme?
    All of our supreme filmmakers have utilized both.

    "Field of Dreams", "Bull Durham" and "For Love of the Game"
    Does anyone have an issue with Kevin Costner electing to act in three baseball themed films?
    Or, for that matter, James Stewart's foray into three films that involved aeronautics?

    With this debate, one can also accuse Gene Kelly of using similar devices and techniques of storytelling within
    "Singin' in the Rain" and "An American in Paris".
    But, on the other hand, why would we want to? Both are gold.

    I could even give an argument and thesis on how Al Pacino's best portrayals;
    be it on the right or wrong side of the law; is an exploration upon the same theme.
    A theme, by the way, that I will let you all have the fun of figuring out on your own.

    Each and every filmmaker, actor, writer and composers worth their salt will always have their themes;
    albeit similar; and yet, altogether different.
    IMHO, its not a matter of an auteurs re-visitations; it's simply a matter of how well the work is executed and conveyed.

    And in the case of Martin Scorsese, his finest works are nothing short of being both brilliant and indelible.

  44. Robert Harris

    Paramount continues to mine their back catalog, and that's a good thing.

    Braveheart and Gladiator are two very different films, but share a common thread.

    Freedom, personal as well as national.

    In 4k, they appear quite different, with Braveheart appearing more film-like, presumably based upon the heavier load of digital work in Gladiator, which would have been at 2k.

    With more production photography in Braveheart, we are allowed a more original appearing grain structure.

    That noted, both look as they should. And for those with an need to compare to the original Gladiator Blu-ray, I advise that it isn't worth one's time to go there.

    The point is that they both look like their final film versions, and are accurately represented.

    Another big plus here, is the addition of height channels, DTS-X on Gladiator, and Dolby Atmos on Braveheart, which create far more impressive sound fields on both.

    For those who do not yet have height channels, Braveheart is the obvious upgrade from standard Blu-ray, while Gladiator can wait until the system is in the house.

    Image – 5

    Audio – 5 – Gladiator (DTS-X)
    Braveheart (Dolby Atmos)

    Pass / Fail – Pass

    Upgrade from Blu-ray – Gladiator – Yes
    Braveheart – Absolutely!

    Very Highly Recommended

    RAH

  45. On RAH's recommendation, among others, I purchased the new Braveheart 4K UHD., and while the quality of the transfer is crisp with respect to color and detail, the picture is REALLY dark, especially when compared to the Blu-Ray. Is this the way it's supposed to look, or is there something wrong with my equipment?

  46. old mole

    On RAH's recommendation, among others, I purchased the new Braveheart 4K UHD., and while the quality of the transfer is crisp with respect to color and detail, the picture is REALLY dark, especially when compared to the Blu-Ray. Is this the way it's supposed to look, or is there something wrong with my equipment?

    Potentially sounds like a tone mapping issue on the display.

  47. Dave H

    Here's a pretty good explanation and visual about tone mapping.

    https://www.avforums.com/article/what-is-4k-hdr-tone-mapping.13883

    Thanks, Dave. Read the link, but I would think that the color gamut on my new Samsung QLED would be accurate. The settings on the picture were done by a professional installer. As I said in my initial post, the picture is sharp ,but dark, darker than the Blu-Ray. I just purchased Dunkirk, so I'm going to look at that picture this morning. Thanks again for your reply.

  48. I think we can simply agree, the Oscars have little to do with 'best' in show and a lot more to do with what political agenda Hollywood du jour happens to be pushing. My tastes vary widely from what's been nominated and what has won, as is evident by the list below. Just saying… (and again, to each his own).

    1990
    (63rd)
    Dances with Wolves Jim Wilson and Kevin Costner
    I would have picked
    Goodfellas Irwin Winkler
    1991
    (64th)
    The Silence of the Lambs Edward Saxon, Kenneth Utt and Ron Bozman
    I would have picked
    JFK
    A. Kitman Ho and Oliver Stone
    1992
    (65th)
    Unforgiven Clint Eastwood
    I would have picked
    Howards End
    Ismail Merchant
    1993
    (66th)
    Schindler's List Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen and Branko Lustig
    I would have picked…
    The Remains of the Day
    Mike Nichols, John Calley and Ismail Merchant
    1994
    (67th)
    Forrest Gump Wendy Finerman, Steve Tisch and Steve Starkey
    I would have picked…
    The Shawshank Redemption
    Niki Marvin
    1995
    (68th)
    Braveheart Mel Gibson, Alan Ladd Jr. and Bruce Davey
    I would have picked either Apollo 13 or
    Sense and Sensibility
    Lindsay Doran
    1996
    (69th)
    The English Patient Saul Zaentz
    agreed
    1997
    (70th)
    Titanic James Cameron and Jon Landau
    I would have picked…
    L.A. Confidential
    Curtis Hanson, Arnon Milchan and Michael Nathanson
    1998
    (71st)
    Shakespeare in Love David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick and Marc Norman
    I would have picked
    Life Is Beautiful
    Elda Ferri and Gianluigi Braschi
    1999
    (72nd)
    American Beauty Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
    I would have picked…
    The Cider House Rules Richard N. Gladstein

    (73rd)
    Gladiator Douglas Wick, David Franzoni and Branko Lustig
    agreed
    2001
    (74th)
    A Beautiful Mind Brian Grazer and Ron Howard
    I would have given it to either
    Gosford Park
    Robert Altman, Bob Balaban and David Levy
    or
    Moulin Rouge!
    Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann and Fred Baron
    2002
    (75th)
    Chicago Martin Richards
    I would have given it to
    The Pianist
    Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa and Alain Sarde
    2003
    (76th)
    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh
    agreed
    2004
    (77th)
    Million Dollar Baby Clint Eastwood, Albert S. Ruddy and Tom Rosenberg
    agreed
    2005
    (78th)
    Crash Paul Haggis and Cathy Schulman
    I would have given it to
    Good Night, and Good Luck
    Grant Heslov
    2006
    (79th)
    The Departed Graham King
    I would have given it to
    Little Miss Sunshine
    David T. Friendly, Peter Saraf and Marc Turtletaub
    2007
    (80th)
    No Country for Old Men Scott Rudin, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
    agreed
    2008
    (81st)
    Slumdog Millionaire Christian Colson
    The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Ceán Chaffin
    Frost/Nixon Ron Howard, Brian Grazer and Eric Fellner
    Milk Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
    The Reader Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti and Redmond Morris
    I would have given it to none of the above. Didn't like any of the nominees this year!
    2009
    (82nd)
    The Hurt Locker Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro
    I would have given it to
    The Blind Side
    Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove and Broderick Johnson

    2010
    (83rd)
    The King's Speech Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin
    agreed
    2011
    (84th)
    The Artist Thomas Langmann
    agreed – or…
    War Horse
    Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy
    2012
    (85th)
    Argo Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney
    It should have been…
    Lincoln
    Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy
    Silver Linings Playbook Donna Gigliotti, Bruce Cohen and Jonathan Gordon

    2013
    (86th)
    12 Years a Slave Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Steve McQueen and Anthony Katagas
    It should have been either
    American Hustle
    Charles Roven, Richard Suckle, Megan Ellison and Jonathan Gordon
    or
    Dallas Buyers Club
    Robbie Brenner and Rachel Winter

    2014
    (87th)
    Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) Alejandro G. Iñárritu, John Lesher and James W. Skotchdopole
    Should have been
    American Sniper
    Clint Eastwood, Andrew Lazar, Robert Lorenz, Bradley Cooper and Peter Morgan
    or
    Boyhood
    Richard Linklater and Cathleen Sutherland
    or
    The Grand Budapest Hotel
    Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven M. Rales and Jeremy Dawson
    or
    The Imitation Game
    Nora Grossman, Ido Ostrowsky and Teddy Schwarzman

    2015
    (88th)
    Spotlight Blye Pagon Faust, Steve Golin, Nicole Rocklin and Michael Sugar
    agreed

    2016
    (89th)
    Moonlight Adele Romanski, Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner
    I would have given it to
    Hidden Figures
    Donna Gigliotti, Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping, Pharrell Williams and Theodore Melfi
    Thank God La La Land didn't win!

    2017
    (90th)
    The Shape of Water Guillermo del Toro and J. Miles Dale
    I would have given it to
    Lady Bird
    Scott Rudin, Eli Bush and Evelyn O'Neill
    or
    The Post
    Amy Pascal, Steven Spielberg and Kristie Macosko Krieger
    or
    Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

  49. old mole

    Thanks, Dave. Read the link, but I would think that the color gamut on my new Samsung QLED would be accurate. The settings on the picture were done by a professional installer. As I said in my initial post, the picture is sharp ,but dark, darker than the Blu-Ray. I just purchased Dunkirk, so I'm going to look at that picture this morning. Thanks again for your reply.

    Brightness output is a crucial part of proper tone mapping – not just accurate gamut. Usually titles which look too dark can be because there is inadequate brightness for better tone mapping. But brightness also affects overall color volume.

    How many nits is your display?

  50. Dave H

    Brightness output is a crucial part of proper tone mapping – not just accurate gamut. Usually titles which look too dark can be because there is inadequate brightness for better tone mapping. But brightness also affects overall color volume.

    How many nits is your display?

    Don't have any idea. But I changed the picture setting to "Dynamic" and that has seemed to solve the problem. Since I now have this new 4k tv and 4k Blu- Ray player, I would love to know if Mr. Harris could submit a list of his top 6 or 7 UHD discs to help me choose what films to purchase.

  51. Robert Crawford

    Amazon has reduced pricing of Gladiator to $19.99 for those interested.

    They must be price matching Best Buy. On a whim, I checked BB and they had it for the same price. I have a $5 e-gift card for there from a previous purchase, so I ordered it for in-store pickup for $14.99 plus tax. I should be able to pick it up on our way to dinner this evening.

  52. Best Buy's flaky online inventory system strikes again! About an hour after placing my order for Gladiator with in-store pickup, I get an email stating the item is not available for pick-up at the location I selected (even though their website stated it was an hour earlier). Fortunately, due to BB's screw-up, one of the options listed for changing the order was free shipping. So, they saved me a trip to the store, but I will not have the film until the end of the week. Not a big deal — I've waited this long for a price drop, so a few more days doesn't really matter.

  53. old mole

    I changed the picture setting to "Dynamic" and that has seemed to solve the problem.

    This picture mode will make the picture blown out, give it blue whites, make the colours more like animation, and give it exceedingly edgy. Put it in movie mode and set contrast to 90. If you have an 8 or 9-series Samsung you should have at least 1000 nit capability, far beyond likely the brightest white used in Braveheart.

    This disc looks great. I'm in love with the film again. Do I have a film projector behind me? Convincing…

  54. Well both the review thread and this one are cluttered with everything but talk about the actual 4K disc of Gladiator.

    I just finished this and it was like I watched the movie for the first time.
    The DTSX track was incredible.
    EVery sound was, was just there.
    I heard things ve never noticed before.
    There is a slight tinkle sound coming from the left that I never heard.
    The crowd chants during the battles. Heard them before but not this way.

    I watched the extended version.

    The movie is great and I have to put it in my top 25 list now.
    It ha sheen on my top 100 somewhere, not sure where but it’s now top 25.

    I don’t remember what the other movies that came out that year are and what the other noms are but I don’t care either.

    This set contains everything from the special edition set of the dvd as far as I can tell.
    Anyway this 4K was amazing and if you lie the movie or haven’t watched it in a while pick this up it will like seeing it for the first time.

    Edited to include that I see in the review it’s said that mattes are more visible due to the higher resolution of the 4K but I didn’t see any of that. I didn’t see any poor cgi. It looked great to me.

    I did see some motion blur during a few action scenes like some of the tigers jumping around but from what I remember that was always there.

Leave a Reply